• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are public schools socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are making quite an assumption here when you consider the school entirely responsible for the educational outcome of the student while holding the student responsible for nothing.

Its a vicious circle.
Uneducated parents cannot educate their children.
I recieved about 50% of my education at home - more than average, I'd say...and I was lucky...its those unlucky ones...and those who have recieved a "negative education".
If we really want things to be better we must spend a whole lot more on schools - and this will turn Sawyers complaint into a revolution..
Of course I do exaggerate a little.
 
I think somebody didn't read his mandatory Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act. Here, let me enlighten you.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Got it? It's not a service. It's a right. And who must cater to the fulfillment of that right? The society. Because failure to cater to this basic human right will be the downward spiral of our society.

The top of the page reads:

Welcome to the United Nations. It's your world.

In any event, no, its a service provided by people. Nothing will change that.
 
That was actually my important point. Were you joking then when you said parents should teach the kids themselves or hire a tutor?

No. If one of the parents has the time, then quite frankly homeschooling is good for the early education, using tutors for things the parents don't know. The best education IMO is where the children can be part of a multigenerational working environment and are taught their academic studies in a integrated way full time year around.
 
And yet, ironically, you're tying bad policy or other negative practices in as examples of why adequate funding is not necessary. The problem is the policy, not the funding. With proper management and funding the quality of education would be extremely high.

The funding is beyond proper. Feeding the problem with more has accomplished nothing.

For example, voters obligated tax payers in Los Angeles to gave the LAUSD @ $20 billion dollars over the last 10 years to build new schools, convinced the excuses they were being given about facilities and class sizes were true. The overall public construction program rivals Boston's Bid Dig for cost, yet, how many know about the Big Dig, versus those who know about the LAUSD school construction scam.

So LAUSD has a new $500 million High School, among other insanities, and the kids are still being poorly served.

It's not funding, but I do agree, it is most certainly bad policy, bad management, and a very bad overall mission plan.
 
I'd like to hear those ideas, as well as how the market can fund schools in less marketable regions.

You're asking me to give away money making ideas. Why would I feel motivated to do that?
 
In my experience, those most critical of public education tend to be those who benefitted from it the least.

Not sure if you meant that as an insult to intelligence. I definitely did not benefit very much from my high school education, but certainly not due to a lack of intelligence. I can count on 1 hand how many classes I took in four years of high school that I felt were challenging and intellectually rewarding. And all but one of them was a college level course (the other, ironically, being a debate course :lol:.) In my opinion it is sad how high school is structured around only the bottom half. Schools are graded and rewarded on the basis of how the borderline dropout students perform. I was at an A rated school, the top rated school in one of the best counties nationally for public education. And it was boring and disengaging beyond belief. I took upper level math classes where I was correcting the teacher's work on a regular basis. I think the major problem with education today is the one size fits all that we see. It forces out the bottom students who have no interest in learning subjects that have nothing to do with job skills; and holds back the top students who take classes strictly for maximizing their GPA rather then rigorously challenging them or pursuing interests.

The only ones who are being "benefited" are the middle 60% by "reducing" the difference in GPA between them and the top level students so they look better then they actually are. This isn't done by increasing their achievement in anyway, but more so by grade manipulation which goes like this. 1: Grades are artificially boasted (or decreased) by the completion of redundent "homework rather then actually merit of knowledge 2: 30-40% of the class gets A's + 90% of the class gets an A or a B and 3: There is no difference on the transcript between the student who gets a 95%+ average on his/her tests and someone who gets a 75% average on his/her tests but gets an A due to homework and extra credit opportunities (thus reducing the difference in achievement between a mediocre student and a top student.)

And my complaints on college are a thousand times worse. I'm finally taking classes where I feel challenged and the difference between an A and a B on a test can be measured by weeks of studying rather then an hour or two. But it is extremely irritating just how many required Gen Ed classes (that I didn't want to be in) I had to pay $700 for some old tenured professor who doesn't give a **** to read off power points with information that is inferior to someone one could find on wikipedia. Its thousands of dollars that I will never get back.
 
You're asking me to give away money making ideas. Why would I feel motivated to do that?

Well, I wish you well with that -- our country always has a need for pioneering and entrepreneurial minds, but pardon us if we're hesitant to take your word for it that "the market" will fix our schools without any details on how that could work.
 
Any thread that begins where someone states I have looked and can't find where it says this in the constitution is going be be nonsense.
 
The funding is beyond proper. Feeding the problem with more has accomplished nothing.

For example, voters obligated tax payers in Los Angeles to gave the LAUSD @ $20 billion dollars over the last 10 years to build new schools, convinced the excuses they were being given about facilities and class sizes were true. The overall public construction program rivals Boston's Bid Dig for cost, yet, how many know about the Big Dig, versus those who know about the LAUSD school construction scam.

So LAUSD has a new $500 million High School, among other insanities, and the kids are still being poorly served.

It's not funding, but I do agree, it is most certainly bad policy, bad management, and a very bad overall mission plan.

Can we agree that adequate instruction and facilities require adequate funding? If so, then we need to concentrate on the management. I imagine I'm sounding like a broken record by now, but I'm specifically responding to the revoking of funds as a response to bad performance/management.
 
Any thread that begins where someone states I have looked and can't find where it says this in the constitution is going be be nonsense.

Yeah, usually.
 
That be the case, and I agree that it is , WHY the federal department of education ?


Federal assistance to schools. Collect statistical data on schools. Ensure federal laws such as civil rights, privacy etc are in compliance. Student loans. Recognition of accreditting agencies.
 
I think it depends upon how you define the word socialism. I couldn't care less how you define it, the fact is that our country would not have advanced as much as it has without public schools.
 
I think it depends upon how you define the word socialism. I couldn't care less how you define it, the fact is that our country would not have advanced as much as it has without public schools.

I want proof of that claim.
 
Can we agree that adequate instruction and facilities require adequate funding? If so, then we need to concentrate on the management. I imagine I'm sounding like a broken record by now, but I'm specifically responding to the revoking of funds as a response to bad performance/management.

We can agree that adequate instruction and facilities require adequate funding. In fact, that really is a given, isn't it?

Obviously, my point is that this level has been achieved in what I believe is most cases.

Students and Parents deserve better, yet, the entrenched forces refuse to be held accoutable, the primary reason why school vouchers have been fought so hard by the left. Giving parents the freedom and right to select what is best for their children does not seem to be the aim, an amazing revelation behind the fight against such a viable solution.
 
Well, I wish you well with that -- our country always has a need for pioneering and entrepreneurial minds, but pardon us if we're hesitant to take your word for it that "the market" will fix our schools without any details on how that could work.

I'm not entirely sure how a business model that take no money by the customer upfront is going to fix anything by itself alone. It's simply another way to provide education to the population.
 
The only thing that needs to happen to the Department of Education is a movement to improve it.
 
I'm not entirely sure how a business model that take no money by the customer upfront is going to fix anything by itself alone. It's simply another way to provide education to the population.

Henrin: People! Lend me your ears! I can solve our education problem!
People: How?
Henrin: I can't tell you!

Seriously, thanks for your contribution in this thread.
 
We can agree that adequate instruction and facilities require adequate funding. In fact, that really is a given, isn't it?

Obviously, my point is that this level has been achieved in what I believe is most cases.

Students and Parents deserve better, yet, the entrenched forces refuse to be held accoutable, the primary reason why school vouchers have been fought so hard by the left. Giving parents the freedom and right to select what is best for their children does not seem to be the aim, an amazing revelation behind the fight against such a viable solution.

Students and parents don't deserve better. If a student doesn't succeed in our system its the student and parents fault.
 
We can agree that adequate instruction and facilities require adequate funding. In fact, that really is a given, isn't it?

Obviously, my point is that this level has been achieved in what I believe is most cases.

Students and Parents deserve better, yet, the entrenched forces refuse to be held accoutable, the primary reason why school vouchers have been fought so hard by the left. Giving parents the freedom and right to select what is best for their children does not seem to be the aim, an amazing revelation behind the fight against such a viable solution.

Vouchers are even worse.
 
Was a national bank of the United States socialism? No.
 
I think it depends upon how you define the word socialism. I couldn't care less how you define it, the fact is that our country would not have advanced as much as it has without public schools.

George Washington and John Quincy Adams and a number of others argued for a National University. Raging socialists, they.
 
Students and parents don't deserve better. If a student doesn't succeed in our system its the student and parents fault.

Not entirely, but I lean towards your conclusion. If the only game in town is the Union owned public school, with all the political baggage they masquerade as lesson plans attached, it can't be entirely the parents, or students fault if they don't get the education they paid for.
 
Not entirely, but I lean towards your conclusion. If the only game in town is the Union owned public school, with all the political baggage they masquerade as lesson plans attached, it can't be entirely the parents, or students fault if they don't get the education they paid for.

Run for school board.

Also, if your kid can't read write or do math It's your fault as a parent. Not the teachers or some union. It's called personal responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom